Washington, D.C.'s CSA population numbers compared to other U.S. cities (crime rates, home)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But, you're not an urbanist and a liberal elitist? You attended Stuyvesant HS (a very selective HS)
I am creeped out that you are trying to keep track of my resume. I will have to reevaluate posting here. If that is your goal, consider yourself winning.
Quote:
"you regularly find ways to interject liberal politics into various threads (such as your bringing up Barbara Comstock's work for Republican candidates when people on the NoVa forum simply wanted to discuss, in objective terms, what it means to be "rich" or successful in this area, with its expensive cost of living);
ms comstock is a politician who made a political statement. I thought pointing out context that might indicate here agenda was on point. If you do not, you may reply in that thread (I havent checked it lately)
Quote:
you treat matters of urban planning and transit-oriented development as if they should be the top priority of discussion;
indeed that is my interest and one of the main reasons I post here. I see nothing wrong with that, and it makes me neither a liberal nor an elitist.
Quote:
and you appear to spend an exceptional amount of time walking or biking around cities and close-in suburbs and then posting about it on C-D.
That is true, and I do not apologize for that.
Quote:
I absolutely believe that this is a twice-exceptional (liberal elitist and urbanist)
that walking and biking is either elitist or liberal is absurd. Though I understand its a meme these days.
Quote:
perspective that does not reflect the concerns of the majority of people who live in this CSA, and that your insistence that people agree with your priorities and concur with your views
I feel its appropriate to argue for my priorities, and views. As others (including on this forum) do for theirs.
Quote:
." is why you end up having so many heated discussions with other posters on the NoVa forum who are less urban-centric, less liberal and/or less elitist.
I have had heated discussions with essentially four people on that forum. One is a loudon uberbooster, one is a hater of what Arlington is (which seems to be what most Arlingtonians want). One is an extreme conservative, and one is probably the most partisan, extreme liberal on the forum.
There are many people in NoVa who are more liberal and more urban centric than I am. Almost all of them live in Arlington or Alexandria though, and the CD NoVa forum does not represent those areas well. There are lots of people in NoVa much more elitist than me - of course I do not use the faux populist definition of elitism, that accepts the wealthy and powerful as non-elite as long at they are folksy, and attacks the non wealthy as elitists for expressing an aesthetic judgement or using sophisticated language.
Last edited by brooklynborndad; 09-04-2012 at 03:01 PM..
if i were a speechwriter trying to put the same facts into politically correct form, I would say "they are an atypical demographic, who place a lower value on the duration of their commute than do most commuters in the region"
I am kind of glad there are people in this region who are not always so careful with their words.
I'm glad I was able to function as a matchmaker for you and Bluefly! I'll try to find out if he prefers flowers or candy and let you know.
Your perceptions may be different from those who grew up in different circumstances and see their suburban homes as the realization of their aspirations, only to be told that their developments would not even exist had only "smart growth" been in place previously to prevent someone from building their "cookie-cutter" homes in suburban communities that allegedly could be found in Anywhere, USA. Certainly some who live in this CSA feel that this is the message they get from some urbanists, and it only underscores the point that language and verbiage do matter that you want to accuse them - or me by proxy - of applying a double standard.
.
the agenda 21 folks are mostly rural. smart growth would not impact their homes at all, for the most part.
"previously to prevent someone from building their "cookie-cutter" homes in suburban communities "
prevent? like ban? but thats not what smart growth policies DO (other than the exceptional case of urban growth boundaries, and the ones we have in this region seem to be popular). Its what people have been TOLD smart growth is about. By folks trying to manipulate them.
I have had heated discussions with essentially four people on that forum. One is a loudon uberbooster, one is a hater of what Arlington is (which seems to be what most Arlingtonians want). One is an extreme conservative, and one is probably the most partisan, extreme liberal on the forum.
Exactly. You argue with the "loudon (sic) uberbooster" because she likes her outer suburb and thinks it's "walkable" and you think it's not really "walkable" and that people in her county haven't embraced TOD quickly enough or with sufficient enthusiasm; you argue with the "hater of what Arlington is" (who lives in Arlington, not Loudoun, and doesn't actually hate Arlington) because he thinks the TOD growth along the Orange Line has some significant costs as well as benefits, and is not simply an unmitigated success; you argue with the "extreme conservative" (who lives in Fairfax, not Loudoun) because, well, he is an "extreme conservative"; and you argued with the "most partisan, extreme liberal (once) on the forum" (who lives in Fairfax, not Loudoun) because, notwithstanding his generally liberal politics, he had reservations about how much TOD should come to Fairfax.
As I said, you tend to argue with people whose views are "less urban-centric, less liberal and/or less elitist" than yours. It doesn't have to be all three, although that might well be the case with some if not all of these posters.
Exactly. You argue with the "loudon (sic) uberbooster" because she likes her outer suburb and thinks it's "walkable" and you think it's not really "walkable" and that people in her county haven't embraced TOD quickly enough or with sufficient enthusiasm; you argue with the "hater of what Arlington is" (who lives in Arlington, not Loudoun) because he thinks the TOD growth along the Orange Line has not been an unmitigated success and has some significant costs as well as benefits; you argue with the "extreme conservative" (who lives in Fairfax, not Loudoun) because, well, he is an "extreme conservative"; and you argue with the "most partisan, extreme liberal (once) on the forum" (who lives in Fairfax, not Loudoun) because, notwithstanding his generally liberal politics, he had reservations about how much TOD should come to Fairfax.
As I said, you tend to argue with people whose views are "less urban-centric, less liberal and/or less elitist" than yours. It doesn't have to be all three, although that might well be the case with some if not all of these posters.
I am not going to rehash threads from long ago from the NoVa forum on here. If the price of cutting off this pointless, personalized, discussion is saying you are right than so be it. yes, every discussion where I disagreed with someone was my bullying. Fine.
I thank you for pointing out that only one person was from Loudoun. In general I do not debate the Loudoun County posters. In fact I am not a Loudoun basher, and like lots of people from Loudoun.
I would also point out though that many urbanists are not liberals
The thing about the "anti-car/pro-car" frame is that it's utterly useless when talking about urban planning and transportation planning. Most of us drive sometimes or all of the time. I drive, my wife drives, my friends and neighbors all drive.
Certainly some people are car-free by choice and sanctimonious about it; let's ignore them for the time being. And while externalities like pollution and fossil fuels are important, they don't need to factor into this conversation either. This isn't about morality or virtue or sustainability.
The central fact about cars, from a planner's perspective, is that they take up space. Lots of space. And this matters because space in cities (a.k.a real estate) is scarce and therefore expensive.
I think it's fair to say all of us come off as more sanctimonious about our positions than we actually are. Jeb77's spent too much time around urbanists who do not support auto-centric lifestyles and is tired of them pointing out the many negative impacts of sprawl and thinking they have a better idea about development than people who just want a home without neighbors bothering them and a safe place to raise their kids. When he sniffs one of us out, he pounces and doubles-down on promoting the value of auto-centric lifestyles, probably more than he truly believes. We, in turn, pounce on him back with a strong focus on the walkable / TOD areas because it's accepted as the status quo that the more suburbanized areas are desirable and nice. High demand for TOD is still relatively new and requires a lot more investment to meet current demand. The more who embrace it the better for all of us, but obviously millions will always live in this region away from transit, and that's great too. In the end, to borrow from the article, it's just basic math:
Quote:
As DC's population continues to grow, the population of cars can't keep growing at the same rate. Not because cars are bad but simply because we don't have room for them.
Also - I've never understood the "cookie-cutter" slander since rowhomes and apartment hallways are all pretty cookie-cutter, too.
this is so wrong on so many levels - among others it vastly overstates the importance of 'urbanist' issues in the politics of the last four years, it bizarrely misunderstands the knowledge sector, it ignores the decline of trade unions in weakening Dem loyalties among blue collar workers, it seems to think that single women and gays never overlap with blue collars, and of course it buys into the GOP meme that the weakness of the current economy is not due to a failure to generate aggregate demand, but to the policies of the current admin (and of course it treats environmental concerns as a luxury).
If you are committed to the notion that the Dems have become the party of the elites, and the GOP of the salt of the earth, it may be threatening to be reminded of how much that has NOT been the result of Dem actions, but has been the result of timing - the Dems taking office when the great recession was just getting under way, and getting blamed for bipartisan supported bank bailouts, of status anxieties in a changing world (see Hofstader) and of course of just plain bamboozlement by professional bamboozlers like the billionaires behind the tea party. Something just MIGHT be the matter with Kansas, indeed.
Also we get there the meme that Chicago (and by extension other successful center cities) is a morally compromised place of selfish singles interested only in their own entertainment. The consumer desires of affluent suburbanites being redeemed by their participation in nuclear families, the historic core unit of civilization (itself a dramatic oversimplification in a world that has know families of all different shapes, clans and lineages, tribes, guilds, villages, etc) - also a disservice to single people in the inner city with strong relationships with their parents, siblings, extended families - and of course ignoring that for most of them this is simply a stage before child bearing, whether that is done in the city or in the suburbs. As we have seen in our discussions here there are LOTS of children of non - poor families in the city - they tend to depart when they hit school age - that would mean a discussion of the problems of inner city schools, rather than the more satisfying meme of selfish young elitists, working for overhyped social media firms while swirling their lattes.
This kind of over the top culture war, with its stereotypes and distortions, is far more dangerous than simply acknowledging what Lincoln knew - that citizens CAN be fooled.
this is so wrong on so many levels - among others it vastly overstates the importance of 'urbanist' issues in the politics of the last four years, it bizarrely misunderstands the knowledge sector, it ignores the decline of trade unions in weakening Dem loyalties among blue collar workers, it seems to think that single women and gays never overlap with blue collars, and of course it buys into the GOP meme that the weakness of the current economy is not due to a failure to generate aggregate demand, but to the policies of the current admin (and of course it treats environmental concerns as a luxury).
If you are committed to the notion that the Dems have become the party of the elites, and the GOP of the salt of the earth, it may be threatening to be reminded of how much that has NOT been the result of Dem actions, but has been the result of timing - the Dems taking office when the great recession was just getting under way, and getting blamed for bipartisan supported bank bailouts, of status anxieties in a changing world (see Hofstader) and of course of just plain bamboozlement by professional bamboozlers like the billionaires behind the tea party. Something just MIGHT be the matter with Kansas, indeed.
Also we get there the meme that Chicago (and by extension other successful center cities) is a morally compromised place of selfish singles interested only in their own entertainment. The consumer desires of affluent suburbanites being redeemed by their participation in nuclear families, the historic core unit of civilization (itself a dramatic oversimplification in a world that has know families of all different shapes, clans and lineages, tribes, guilds, villages, etc) - also a disservice to single people in the inner city with strong relationships with their parents, siblings, extended families - and of course ignoring that for most of them this is simply a stage before child bearing, whether that is done in the city or in the suburbs. As we have seen in our discussions here there are LOTS of children of non - poor families in the city - they tend to depart when they hit school age - that would mean a discussion of the problems of inner city schools, rather than the more satisfying meme of selfish young elitists, working for overhyped social media firms while swirling their lattes.
This kind of over the top culture war, with its stereotypes and distortions, is far more dangerous than simply acknowledging what Lincoln knew - that citizens CAN be fooled.
Dunno - Obama probably had a lot of what Kotkin writes about in this article in mind when he decided to pick - and now retain - Biden as his VP running mate. And Kotkin's blend of demography and sociology is not too different from what Richard Florida and David Brooks often write about, although it takes them in different directions.
I guess this is relevant to the thread because this big CSA will go for Obama again and people can look at the polls afterwards to see if Kotkin's analysis held up.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
